Police encounter. Freeman gets off driving without a license.

Whether we like it or not the STATE *owns* the roadways, held in our *collective* interests. Our *collective* interests are properly served by
ensuring those who *drive* upon our roadways are properly licensed and insured. Spoiled little snotheads not exempt. Should someone wish to disavow
societal constraints and restraints, FINE. I DO NOT argue that they should not be allowed to do so. JUST STAY OFF THE ROADS WHILE DRIVING A
MOTORIZED VEHICLE.

We the people that paid for the roadways own the roadways. Your personal prison seems strong. You mentioned insurance....stating the freeman needs to
carry it. How about you carry your own insurance that covers you and your passengers only and if the freemen does not do the same its his problem not
yours.

You have let yourself get talked into being state owned. This is only the beginning, 50 years frm now we will all be totally free if the world does
not collapse beforehand.

First of all, you have to release yourself from govenment control.. As soon as you vote, you consent to be governed. You're basically giving consent
to the governemt to make decisions for you.. You become part of "That society" the "law society". Therefore you have to follow their rules. You
here him say the cop was reading his affidavit of truth, that's a piece of paper stating that he is not part of that society and he choses not to be
governed. You do that with a notary public.

I'll admit that I didn't want the video yet, but I want to point out that "traveling" isn't limited to motor vehicles. Cars are a means of
traveling. You're traveling when you're walking or riding a horse or bicycle. And also taking 3 or 4 steps before you hit a layup, but the refs
never call it. What's up with that?

Like Steven Wright says: Everywhere is walking distance, if you have the time.

I have to say "Applause" to you in your efforts and communications with Geeky_Bubbe, this conversation was extremely priceless and meaningful for
me. I am only on page 5 of this thread as of this "reply", but a damned fine job!

I love it when the pushy get pushed and the domineering get domineered. Very good form indeed!

so what does a drivers license prove. it proves that you paid a $150 dollars to the government to give you a piece of plastic certifying that you can
drive around the block a few times and reverse into a parking space. actually drivers license cause drinking and driving fatalities because if they
didn't have a license they wouldn't have been driving, they would have taken the bus.

Depends on the "why." I actually support the "chipping" of dementia patients such as advanced Alzheimers sufferers. Beats the heck out of
strapping them to their beds 24 hours a day.

Additionally, if chipping were more accessible I would advocate the "chipping" of my granddaughter until she reached "age of consent" at which
time she has every right to have it removed - or maintain it for her safety.

So, ultimately, yes I would should I happen to develop Alzheimers I would *hope* my husband would choose to "chip" me as opposed to restrain me in
modern "benign" shackles.

Those who would trade their liberty for safety deserve neither.

Perhaps your time working within the system has numbed you into accepting the tyranny that is supports? Because it is tyranny. If you disagree,
study the works of your founding fathers, the genius that created our country.

Perhaps your time working within the system has numbed you into accepting the tyranny that is supports? Because it is tyranny. If you disagree,
study the works of your founding fathers, the genius that created our country.

Stand up. Stand against tyranny. Live free or die.

Would you like me to list out the books I've read regarding that moment in history, the men involved, and the documents. I assure you the list is
*quite* extensive.

Perhaps your time working within the system has numbed you into accepting the tyranny that is supports? Because it is tyranny. If you disagree,
study the works of your founding fathers, the genius that created our country.

Stand up. Stand against tyranny. Live free or die.

Would you like me to list out the books I've read regarding that moment in history, the men involved, and the documents. I assure you the list is
*quite* extensive.

[edit on 25/6/10 by Geeky_Bubbe]

[edit on 25/6/10 by Geeky_Bubbe]

[edit on 25/6/10 by Geeky_Bubbe]

No, that is quite alright.

But i will point out that it could be possible that there is not the distinction made between "read" and "understand".

And that is not a slight in any way. I read books years apart and come way with completely different understandings. It has to do with frames of
reference, etc. Yours is groomed highly towards the corporate UNITED STATES OF AMERICA legal system. Were you to have a different "programming",
perhaps you would have a different understanding.

But one thing, one major flaw i have noticed...you believe the differences between terms like "driving" and "travellng" are merely semantics. But
in legal definitions, they are completely separate things. You are not differentiating between legalese, and common speak. Common speak will get you
nowhere when "they" are trying to use technicalities to keep up the house of cards that has been erected.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
And that is not a slight in any way. I read books years apart and come way with completely different understandings. It has to do with frames of
reference, etc. Yours is groomed highly towards the corporate UNITED STATES OF AMERICA legal system. Were you to have a different "programming",
perhaps you would have a different understanding.

Ah, yes. You have read the works of the founding fathers and come away with the TRUE understanding that none of us mere mortal sheep could EVER
understand! Clearly, your intellect is a shining beacon in this murky world! We should all bow to your intense philosophical and literary might!

Seriously, I'm getting suck of this disgusting, condescending argument by the Tea Party nutters. As someone who came to this country and had to go
through the citizenship classes, it's abundantly clear that the Constitution was intentionally written in a manner that allows for different
interpretations, hence the need for a Supreme Court made of many members (not just one) to interpret laws and the Constitution. To suggest any single
interpretation is the ULTIMATE understanding and the SOLE intent of the founders is simply ignorant.

I read that you have left the thread, but for the record for anyone else reading, I am not a failure. I have done quite well for myself.

Well, I had left the thread but when I saw your alias show up in my "MyATS" listing I wished to see what you had written since our paths had crossed
previously.

But, that begs the question: You decided to address me assuming I would not read it and reply. Why? Just to "score a point" by insinuating that I
was ignorant of the founding principles and history?

You should have also read in that post of mine that I wished everyone well and luck in their endeavors. My opinion differs than most who are
participating in this thread. That's the way of internet forums. If we all held the same opinion it would not be any fun at all. What I say
counter to the prevailing opinion in this thread makes no difference to those who disagree with me and what they say makes no difference to me. Why
bother. But, your post... well...

Anyone care to explain this to me or give a link that has readable info? The link in the other thread is basically about this Norton guy's life mixed
with the concept/info and I can't sort out the stuff I need to read and stuff about how he did x and blah blah. Plus it was a bad PDF. It was crooked
and stuff. And I have OCD.

Well, I had left the thread but when I saw your alias show up in my "MyATS" listing I wished to see what you had written since our paths had crossed
previously.

But, that begs the question: You decided to address me assuming I would not read it and reply. Why? Just to "score a point" by insinuating that I
was ignorant of the founding principles and history?

I apologize if i came across that way. As i mentioned just prior to this, you have an understanding based on a frame of reference that is within the
legal system. This must, to at least some degree, influence your perspective, correct? It is kind of like, if you go to a doctor that does family
medicine you are likely to be prescribed medication. But if you see a surgeon, you will be prescribed surgery. the perspective changes the
judgement. And i pass no judgement on informed decisions that differ from mine. Not at all.

I just disagree with you.

I posted because i was sure you were reading and wanted you to consider it. But more than that, this thread is getting a large audience. My post was
primarily directed at the quiet majority, so that they would consider that your perspective will influence your understanding. In so doing, I hope to
encourage them to seek the truth for themselves. As that is how it was set up. The "truths are self obvious", right?

I am currently a "law abiding citizen". I won't always be this way. But I believe in liberty. I believe in men being responsible and accountable
not for appeasing a tyrant, but for causing damage to another person. But as it stands I am a law abiding citizen, and a member of charitable groups.
I believe in the common good, but i believe the common good cannot trump the individual freedom.

Were we following natural law, would we really risk having DWI's? I would say it would likely end up being more that a culture of accountability
and responsibility would take over, and DWI's would likely be a thing of the past. But who knows. Free people can be stupid, too.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
And that is not a slight in any way. I read books years apart and come way with completely different understandings. It has to do with frames of
reference, etc. Yours is groomed highly towards the corporate UNITED STATES OF AMERICA legal system. Were you to have a different "programming",
perhaps you would have a different understanding.

Ah, yes. You have read the works of the founding fathers and come away with the TRUE understanding that none of us mere mortal sheep could EVER
understand! Clearly, your intellect is a shining beacon in this murky world! We should all bow to your intense philosophical and literary might!

Seriously, I'm getting suck of this disgusting, condescending argument by the Tea Party nutters. As someone who came to this country and had to go
through the citizenship classes, it's abundantly clear that the Constitution was intentionally written in a manner that allows for different
interpretations, hence the need for a Supreme Court made of many members (not just one) to interpret laws and the Constitution. To suggest any single
interpretation is the ULTIMATE understanding and the SOLE intent of the founders is simply ignorant.

I am no "nutter" for anything other than my beautiful wife, and maybe American football. I would never align myself with a political party.
Political parties demand their members to place loyalty to party ahead of loyalty to nation. I find this disgusting and a slap in the face to the
sacrifices of my ancestors.

I am sorry that you think I feel superior to anyone. I can assure you that this is untrue, but I suspect that my assurances won't matter here.

I base my understandings of the constitution off of what the founding fathers stated I needed: my intellect and ability to read.

But I do use additional information, like their own writings on the subject and my understanding of the schools of thought that they followed.

You are absolutely *correct* when you state my experiences color my perspective and my opinions. It's one of the *main* reasons I did not, nor have
I withheld that detail... when it is germane to the conversation.

There are a lot of laws I find stupid. A few I find "chafing." And a smaller few I find *offensive*. But that doesn't give me the "right" to
break them... no matter how much I might wish I could break them with impunity.

I enjoy an "orderly" society, if what we have nowadays could qualify for such. Since I enjoy an "orderly" society I must, if I am intellectually
honest, accept that society's restraints as long as they do not infringe upon my Constitutional Rights. Thus far, they have not. Though, we are
getting perilously close to that. Hence, my "Tea Party Nuttery" activities.

It's time to take the country back. Legally. Constitutionally. Peacefully.

If I have to go the route of Gandhi or Dr. King... I'm prepared to do that.

I am not prepared to thumb my nose as society though and still expect to benefit from that society. The concept just doesn't make sense to me.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.